351–360 of 385 posts
So much denialism going on here, it's like talking to my alcoholic relative. This shouldn't trigger such a strong reaction, if it does, one should look into why that is.
Ever read any HN thread where the article states that to combat obesity one just have to eat less? ... yeah.
After reading through comments, I'm just glad that Gen Z drinks less than Gen Y (that drinks less than Gen X (that drinks less than a subsequent gen, boomers probably)), because * I should not have to explain why I don't drink, simple 'no' suffices * I should not have to listen, that alcohol is not too bad/is completely harmless/is fine in moderation/is actually required in social life And the best thing - they do it…
Besides, nobody outside the Us thinks this way. You are being pushed one against each other.
So much denialism going on here, it's like talking to my alcoholic relative. This shouldn't trigger such a strong reaction, if it does, one should look into why that is.
The reaction you're seeing is not because we've all got drinking problems. It's due to the reactionary way this and other similar studies are headlined: "No level of alcohol consumption is safe...". It's click-bait, and so you're seeing the resulting clicks. I'm sure you wouldn't have seen anywhere near this kind of reaction if the headline was instead "Any level of alcohol consumption increases liver cancer risk by…
> However, latest available data indicate that half of all alcohol-attributable cancers in the WHO European Region are caused by “light” and “moderate” alcohol consumption – less than 1.5 litres of wine or less than 3.5 litres of beer or less than 450 millilitres of spirits per week Half a litre of beer a day is considered "light"?
It's very light - in many (most not zero-tolerance) country is legal to drive. One beer is around 0.04-0.05% for a grown up man, around 2h after consumption it should be below 0.02%.
I fear for a world where alcohol is banned. I feel modern society is built on it. A human is the only animal that is aware they will die. Also unique to humans is that we think about what others think. This makes us very anxious. Alcohol is a known way to relax. It helps calm our minds down. No it's not good for our bodies. But it's very healthy to relax.
The thinking is backwards on this. They state there is no scientific safe drinking level. They even compare it to radiation. The goal is to establish an unsafe level. it's like saying there is no safe speed to drive a car - sure that's technically true, but worthless to say.
There has been some suggestions that 1-2 drinks is the optimal (extends health etc..). So, this clears up any confusion on that topic. There are many things that are risky but make life worth living, the previous guidance made it appear you could enjoy life (1-2 drinks) with actual upsides which unfortunately turns out not to be the case of drinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus, it's impossible to do research without being accused of being biased, is it.
It is entirely possible. But "research" as this paper here are mostly useless. They are good for nothing. It's like researching the fact that "there is no amount of soap that can be considered harmless for the environment". Yes, we know, and now that everyone knows that we all know, what about "we don't care and we'll keep using soap responsibly"? p.s.: replace "soap" with "human activity" and the paradox will probab…
Everyone absolutely does not know that small amounts are harmful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be fine if drinking didn't affect people's ability to satisfy their social obligations (as coworkers, parents, friends, etc.) but that's not the case.
Drinking sometimes for some people impairs their ability to meet their social obligations. Prohibition was an unmitigated disaster and you have to be a special kind of idiot to think trying it again would produce a different result. People like to drink alcohol.
The whole argument seems like a discussion-ending cover for people's emotional attachment to alcohol. It completely doesn't engage with the cost-benefit analysis of how alcohol affects the functioning of society at large or navigate any of those tradeoffs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is entirely possible. But "research" as this paper here are mostly useless. They are good for nothing. It's like researching the fact that "there is no amount of soap that can be considered harmless for the environment". Yes, we know, and now that everyone knows that we all know, what about "we don't care and we'll keep using soap responsibly"? p.s.: replace "soap" with "human activity" and the paradox will probab…
Hold on, there is a lot of popular wisdom that thinks that small amounts of alcohol is either harmless or beneficial. Solid research on that topic absolutely is valuable. Everyone absolutely does not know that small amounts are harmful.
So much denialism going on here, it's like talking to my alcoholic relative. This shouldn't trigger such a strong reaction, if it does, one should look into why that is.
I'd be perfectly fine never touching a drop of alcohol again, and think this sort of dire warning is crap. It's actively harming the dissemination of good health advice.